Jandrt v. State

On this review the principal contention of the defendant is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the public defender contends that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, Gerald Mapps, who said he observed the defendant pry open the panel of a door of the burgled premises with his hands, is not entitled to belief and will not support the finding of guilt.

In Sparkman v. State, 1 this court reiterated the oft stated rule :

“. . . The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is . . . competent evidence upon which to base…